It's not specifically white at all - but unfortunately if things keep on in this direction it might start to head that way. The people in Grenada aren't suddenly doing it for right wing political reasons. Symbols can mean different things in different contexts.
So, do you feel raise the colours is inherently exclusionary?
The campaign? Absolutely. If people want to put a giant England flag generally, no. I mean, if you were to superimpose where the flags are going up in Birmingham on an ethnicity map there would be a major correlation. Raise The Colours is backed by a load of Tommy Robinson types.
Can you explain why without using guilt by association? Or presumed motivations. Just the act itself.
The act itself is not happening in isolation though. People are putting the flags up and vandalising stuff *because of* all the migrant protests. This isn't a spontaneous display of positive patriotism. I'm not presuming the motivations, people are being very clear about why they're doing it.
Some people are. I would say to extrapolate that as a reading on the entire movement and everyone who supports it is a reach? Imagine if we did that with other causes. Gaza, for example, is it fair to label the Pro-Palestine movement antisemitic because some of its advocates are anti-Semitic?
I would guess that far more of the Raise The Flags enthusiasts have extreme views than pro Gaza campaigners are antisemitic, especially now that Gaza is now far more in the mainstream than it was. For quite some time I stayed quiet on Gaza because of the antisemitic behaviour of some online
Do you not see the implication of using guilt by association? Where else it leads and why it is weak ground to argue from.
I'm not really sure it's guilt by association when people go on local Facebook groups and make it clear exactly why they're doing it. And also say "It was me who vandalised the mini roundabout and I'm doing more" and are praised by huge numbers of local people.
You're implying that the people who support it are the equivalent of Britain First or Tommy Robinson, assuming it must be exclusionary by nature. A more charitable reading would be to see it as an expression of English identity, a demand to be heard for what it is, not for what it is presumed to be.
The issue at the heart of what im getting at is that reflexive reaction progressives have to the flag. It is terrible for unity. In our secular nation, what else can we align under whatever race or religion, if not the flag? Why abandon it and allow its power to be abused by the far right?